Yes, it's the last lines of Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est, though I had to cut the preceding lines out and edit the final ones a bit to make it fit.

If you could hear, at every jolt, the bloodCome gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cudOf vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–My friend, you would not tell with such high zestTo children ardent for some desperate glory,The old Lie: Dulce et decorum estPro patria mori.

My favourite poem by Wilfred Owen - and my favourite poem overall - is Anthem for Doomed Youth, but this one had a better line to quote.

Yeah, you don't really hear about all the times diplomacy works and disputes are settled relatively quietly with a minimum of saber-rattling and threats of nuclear holocaust. Doesn't really make good eye-catch.

I think he should be left alone.Exile I can understand ,but a trial? Let's say some protests erupt in the UK and the windsor house gets thrown,Should the queen be prosecuted for theft?

Mubarac inherited a dictatorship from far worse dictators and made slow steps towards democracy (And you can say he succeeded-Assuming Egypt will become a democracy.) while keeping his seat.The guy wasn't a saint but he stepped down relatively peacefully-Do you think he would've done that if he knew he would face trial?

When the apartheid in SA ended, those responsible to it were granted amnesty,I consider this a good precedent for regime changes. Egypt should stop drowning in vengeance and focus on building the new regime.

Gaddafi however has crossed the line already,I can see why people want him dead but I'm against death penalty in general,so life imprisonment will have to do.

Yes. If the monarchy were abolished, why not try the Windsors? It's not like they don't deserve it.

As a rule of thumb, each and every person in authority is hostis humani generis unless proven otherwise. As soon as there's a risk-free chance to make their lives miserable or get some payback, we should take it.

At any rate, such a trial would be mostly a show intended to publicly embarrass the royals. A conviction would be unlikely, (and unnecessary), but the making authorities/former authorities miserable criterion would still be fulfilled.

Savage, you seem to have a deeply ingrained grudge against authority figures in general. Just because someone is in charge doesn't automatically make them a bad person who needs to have their life made hard.

Leaders are people like any other. They have their fears and insecurities, the beliefs they cannot be shifted from, their own set of fallacies and the same stubborn tendencies humans have demonstrated through the ages (of which these forums are practically a microcosm of at times.) Turning the world on its head isn't going to solve anything bar replacing one group of humans with another. This is why we have democracy; its not some ideal, perfect system where everyone lives in harmony. Its supposed to be a failsafe to get rid of a leader who is doing an inadequate job. The problem is that governing a country is such a hard job (look at how leaders age!) that most governments are inadequate, and so it ends up with democracies just juggling people around, especially as most governments tend to be inflexible in their thinking processes and thus tend to continue good trends to the point where they go past the optimal point and start doing harm. Ideology is a blight on society.

Part of me hopes you end up in a position of authority one day. It might rebalance your views towards the unavoidable part of humanity you seem to hold in such disdain. They have a very hard job.

Maybe we don't need the queen. Sure, we could probably do without the royal family. But if that means introducing a constitution... look, I've seen how countries like America do business, and frankly, I'm not impressed. No offence to Americans. (Though Germany seems to do quite well...) The constitutional model seems to work better than that. On top of that, the royal family is our last line of defence, ironically, against a presidential type of dictatorship. Its a place the army and citizenry can rally around until elections can be re-established. And I, personally, hold that to be an extremely positive thing.

The royal family has gone soft, yeah. but it is still funded by the civilians,if I was British I might be wondering why should my money fund the ostentatious life style of some family just because they used to be tyrants.

Doesn't mean I should make their life miserable, revenge is not a very progressive value.

This is true, but what would we replace it with? A constitution and a president? I prefer the unicameral model.

EDIT: Come to think of it, there's nothing stating that a constitutional nation needs to have a president... it would just make the Prime Minister the de facto head of state... with complete control of the military... shit.

Hmm... you know, minus the coalition enforcing rule (which is just about as bad as a bicameral system when it comes to decisive leadership) that might actually work.

Here's the trouble with a military safeguarding the constitution though. Two problems, to be exact.

1: How the feck do you change the constitution if it becomes outdated?

2: (Much more serious) Here's the trouble with the military holding the keys of power. You're then saddled with the military until fresh elections can be held. And... well, the military has to be persuaded that elections should be held. They have all the guns.

The coalition element obviously stops things from getting that far. Plus, you know, its fairer. So you know what, thats not a half-bad system.

EDIT: I would strongly suggest not cutting the term time though. We have short-termist enough leadership as it is, without making leaders come and go every second year! We do not want to go the way of Japan!

I think Mubarak deserves a fair trial, which, considering all the corruption and violence (including the torture cells that were found in the secret police's HQ), would get him life in jail. Giving him amnesty would give potential dictators in the future more incentive to become tyrannical because they would expect to get amnesty if their regime falls. If we bring Mubarak to court, it'll send the message that we will seek justice.

This is, of course, looking at it from the perspective of someone who lives in Finland.

To look at this from a more rational point of view, what would a trial mean to the Egyptian people? Giving Mubarak amnesty would mean that his crimes weren't bad enough to warrant trial. If you try him publicly and fairly, the people will know that justice is being carried out and that corrupted government officials are not invulnerable.

TV Tropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy